Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: What machines core dump on deref of NULL? Message-ID: <26878337.172@tct.uucp> Date: 26 Jun 90 15:45:59 GMT References: <2389@aix.aix.kingston.ibm.com> <13226@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2392@aix.aix.kingston.ibm.com> Organization: ComDev/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 25 According to rlc@aix.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Roger Collins): >When a commercial computer system doesn't run a piece of software (no >matter how old or poorly written) that runs on other systems, the >computer gets the blame. "The computer" often gets the blame undeservedly. So what? We should NOT make engineering decisions based on perceived blame. Dereferencing null pointers is *illegal* and *non-portable*. >Now, why don't you suggest to your boss that you release a computer >that initializes .bss to 0xffffffff? (Leaving it uninitialized is a >security hole on multiuser systems.) It doesn't break the C language. Yes it would. Uninitialized globals *are* guaranteed to be zero (or null, for pointers). Perhaps you should read Kernighan and Ritchie's book. It is a good idea to learn a language before trying to use it as example of anything. Otherwise you could end up looking stupid. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT ,